Saturday, October 10, 2015

On What Frederick Douglass & Booker T. Washington Would Think (If These Guys Were Around Today) About Race Baiting Demagoguing Bloggers Like Willis Hart

Another offensive commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he refers to Black men as "minstrels".

Willis Hart: On What Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington Would Think (if These Guys Were Around Today) About Minstrels Like Toure' and Mark LaMont Hill Belly-Aching About Things Such as "Micro-Aggressions"... My suspicion is that they'd probably either vomit or face-plant 'em. (10/10/2015 AT 9:06am).

Honestly, I'm not sure how Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington would react. I do know that Conservatives like to quote these two gentlemen. Specifically the quote by Washington in which he refers to "another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public".

Conservatives LOVE that quote, as it ties in nicely with their delight in labeling Black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson "race hustlers". Why Willis does not use that term instead of "minstrel" is a bit puzzling.

In any case, I do believe that both Douglas and Washington would be at least a little perplexed that, so many generations later, racism is still alive and well. And then perhaps they'd vomit... as a result of a racist White guy (thinking he isn't racist) invoking their names to bash successful Black men - while using the offensive term "minstrel".

Something the race baiting Willis apparently believes he is clever for coming up with, given that he's done it on numerous occasions. As for his rejection of the term "microaggression" and labeling it "bellyaching", this (I believe) is further proof of Willis' racism.

According to Wikipedia microaggression "is a term which some use to refer to unintended discrimination. Psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce coined the word microaggression in 1970 to describe insults and dismissals he said he had regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflict on African Americans".

Sounds a totally imaginary thing that nobody has done ever, right? No, I think this is a real thing. However, as everyone knows, identifying a problem so something can be done about it is a bad idea. Addressing problems is best done by ignoring them and hoping they go away.

Anyway, as far as microaggressions go, if you're a typical self-centered Conservative or Libertarian who views selfishness as a "virtue", you surely don't give a shit if your words offend other people. That's "political correctness" and is one of society's biggest problems. That's how the Trumps of the world view the issue, at least. In their minds they have the right to be insensitive bigots and it's other people's problem if they get offended.

Which, I'm convinced, explains the existence of people like Willis. In fact, it appears to me that Willis takes pride in being a racially insensitive jackass. Something that (IMO) absolutely qualifies him as a member of the filthy scum of White society.

Seems to me that Willis really dislikes it when successful Black men (including leaders in the Black community) stand up and speak out against racism. I wonder why? And, yes, that is a rhetorical question. But I'm stating my own opinion here. I'm not hiding behind nor "suspecting" what Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington might say (or how they might react), unlike the Hartster.

Frederick Douglas, btw, said "the ballot is the only safety". So I think, given the fact that the Republican party of today utilizes the strategy of disenfranchising Black voters in order to win elections, this is something that might cause Douglass and Washington to vomit. As opposed to vomiting in response to successful Black men like Touré Neblett and Marc LaMont Hill "bellyaching" about microaggressions.